Hi Doug,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:18:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not
> > > > going to try to impl
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:24 PM Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM Laurent Pinchart
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not
> > > going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level.
> >
> > Why not ? :-)
>
> B
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> Hi Dough.
>
> > >
> > > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT
> > > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-)
> >
> > Interesting that you bring this up. Conversion to yaml is
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:14 PM Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
>
> > I'll add this documentation into the comments of the yaml, but I'm not
> > going to try to implement enforcement at the yaml level.
>
> Why not ? :-)
Because trying to describe anything in the yaml bindings that doesn't
fit in the
Hi Dough.
> >
> > If we don't want to test that, I would at least document it in the DT
> > bindings. It will be a good occasion to switch the bindings to YAML ;-)
>
> Interesting that you bring this up. Conversion to yaml is sitting
> waiting to land (or additional review comments):
>
> https:
Hi Doug,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 02:12:20PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > The ti-sn65dsi86 MI
Hi Doug,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:59:30AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> > > remapping of eDP lanes
Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-05-05 11:45:05)
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-05-04 21:36:31)
> > > regmap_update_bits(pdata->regmap, SN_DSI_LANES_REG,
> > >CHA_DSI_LANES_MASK, val);
> > >
> > > +
Hi
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:44 PM Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-05-04 21:36:31)
> > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these
> > features have been described in the device tree
Hi,
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:24 AM Laurent Pinchart
wrote:
>
> Hi Douglas,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> > remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion.
Hi Douglas,
Thank you for the patch.
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 09:36:31PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these
> features have been described in the device tree bindings
Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-05-04 21:36:31)
> The ti-sn65dsi86 MIPI DSI to eDP bridge chip supports arbitrary
> remapping of eDP lanes and also polarity inversion. Both of these
> features have been described in the device tree bindings for the
> device since the beginning but were never implem
13 matches
Mail list logo
